Comments (Internal Review)

Here are the main comments from Rob and Josh for the internal review held on 14th July.
[Thanks a lot to Juan who helped me wrote most of these comments down while I was presenting]

1) Have consistency in the graphics

2) Be clear in the representation and explanation of the parameters which I have setup

3) Look up MVRDV's design proposal for Barcelona (Hyper Cataluna), which is based on blocking everything from the outside

4) My knowledge of Singapore's history is not represented by the numerical values of the parametric table. There is a discrepancy in the ability of the quantitative representation by the table

5) The parameters differ from what I proposed in the scenarios

6) Think about the issues of QUALITY vs QUANTITY in my proposals

7) There is a missing part between the parameters and the scenarios. The link which shows the 'rules' of the 'game'; the layout of what what the city should be. The way I design the scenarios is still done using the traditional way

8) How are you able to digest the parameters, consider their 'values', analyze the impact of the change of one variable, then consider the new set of values as a whole, to reconfigure the qualitative aspect of the city on a 'parallel reality'? All these before you set down to stamp your design authorship ... ...

9) If you are able to figure this approach and methodology and apply it successfully, you can use it for your future career, having your office staff do the parametric analysis and setting up the 'augmented reality scenes', and you are the designer translating these results of the 'game'

10) In your presentation today, there is an untruthfulness in what you are saying. (referring to the link between the scenarios to the parameters changes). You are not actually taking the logic from the past in your scenarios

11) The diagram about Pirated Forces itself is very interesting

12) You shouldn't design just based on one variable. You have to treat the whole set of parameters in a holistic way, and design in relation to the 5 categories which are put under simulation to generate different possibilities

13) Link the Architecture to your parameters

14) Are you able to handle this 'simulation' aspect of the thesis? Maybe it is more of a 'scenario' at this point